Issue - meetings

It was proposed by the Chairman, seconded by the Vice-Chairman and Members agreed the recommendations from the Standards Committee as  detailed at paragraph 6.1 in the report, namely:

‘1. That Full Council does not introduce an appeals process for rejected questions.

2. That Full Council does not allow Members of the public to ask supplementary questions.

3. That when the Chief Executive considers rejecting a question, they should consult with the Chair of the Council first.

4. That information on the process for submitting questions and the support available is shared at full council and on social media.

5. That the word limit for questions from Councillors and Members of the Public be increased from 50 to 150.’

Cllr Whitehead spoke under council procedure rule 20.1

Nicholas Hughes, Committee Services Manager, presented the report noting that a previous report on extending the word limit for questions had been to council in Dec 2020 and Council had not raised any objections to the extension but did return it to the CRWP to look into an appeals process and the right to ask supplementary questions.

He explained that the CRWP had recommended to the Standards Committee the following:

1. It was decided not to recommend to the Standards Committee the introduction of an appeals process for rejected questions.

2. That the Standards Committee discuss further whether to allow Members of the public to ask supplementary questions.

3. That, when the Chief Executive considers rejecting a question, they should consult with the Chairman of the Council first.

4. That information on the process for submitting questions and the support available is shared at full council and on social media.

The Committee then discussed the report and made the following points:

·  The public are told the specific reason why if their question is rejected.

·  The appeals process was widely considered unnecessary.

·  All questions received are put in the agenda, if time runs out during the meeting any remaining questions would be answered in writing.

·  The previously proposed increase of the word limit for questions from 50 to 150 words would allow for additional comments to be made within the original question. Consequently it was felt by some that supplementary questions would not be necessary.

·  Concern was raised that supplementary questions would create opportunity for making a personal attack or attempting to catch out councillors.

·  It was considered that it would add another layer of confidence for the public if questions which are likely to be rejected for subjective reasons were shared with the Chair to gain their opinion as well.

·  Rejected questions already go to the Monitoring Officer and then to the Chief Executive, so are already seen by more than one person.

It was proposed by Mr Tucker and seconded by Cllr Kup and agreed by Members that the Standards Committee recommend to Council that:

·  Full Council does not introduce an appeals process for rejected questions.

It was proposed by Mr Tucker and seconded by Mr Lorenzo that the Standards Committee recommend to Council that:

·  Full Council allows members of the public to ask supplementary questions.

This proposal was put to a vote and FELL.

It was proposed by Mr Tucker and seconded by Cllr Fellows and agreed by Members that the Standards Committee recommend to Council that:

·  Full Council does not allow members of the public to ask supplementary questions.

It was proposed by Mr Tucker and seconded by Cllr Crittenden and agreed by Members that the Standards Committee recommend to Council that:

·  When the Chief Executive considers rejecting a question, they should consult with the Chair of the Council first.

It was proposed by Mr Tucker and seconded by Cllr Fellows and agreed by Members that the Standards Committee  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5

Nicholas Hughes, Committee Services Manager, outlined the report. He explained that as the CRWP had already extensively discussed and made recommendations on the changes to the questions word limit, he would not be raising that issue at the meeting.

Members then discussed the report and raised the following points during discussion:

•  Giving the opportunity to come back to an answer could give rise to persons damaging the reputation of the authority and/or putting councillors in a compromising position.

•  That the ability to ask a supplementary question can be seen as a significant democratic principle; facilitating follow-up discussion and giving the same right of return to the public as to councillors.

•  The existing time limit for all questions to council means that adding supplementary questions would not affect any other business.

•  The intent of a follow-up question may be more negative than councillors would like, however, there are 2 filtering processes - CEx approval of the initial question and the Chair’s role within the meeting.

•  Concern was raised that the procedure for rejecting a question lies with one person (the CEx).

•  Councillors were keen to remind the public that questions can be put to councillors or officers anytime, outside of full council, and that Democratic Services can help the public compose a question for council if desired.

The Committee Services Manager and Estelle Culligan, Director of Law and Democracy, made the following points in response:

•  Reasons for rejecting a question are given and help is offered where practicable to support the public to produce a question which wouldn’t be rejected. However the ability to do was often compromised by questioners leaving submission to very near to the deadline. 

•  It would be possible to add a second opinion to rejected questions e.g. In consultation with the Chair, if Councillors choose to recommend that.

•  As it stands the CEx will often take advice from the Monitoring Officer or Democratic Services Officer before deciding to reject a question.

•  It would be possible to change the Chair’s script to explain the questions process at Full Council and advertise this more widely.

Following a vote it was decided not to recommend to the Standards Committee the introduction of an appeals process for rejected questions.

It was proposed, seconded and agreed that the CRWP would recommend to the Standards Committee:

•  That the Standards Committee discuss further whether to allow Members of the public to ask supplementary questions.

•  That when the Chief Executive considers rejecting a question, they should consult with the Chairman of the Council first.

•  That information on the process for submitting questions and the support available is shared at full council and on social media.

It was proposed by the Chairman and seconded by the Vice-Chairman that the recommendations detailed in the report be approved, namely:

“To increase the word limit for Full Council questions from Members of the Public and Councillors from 50 words to 150 words.”

Following debate Members agreed to withdraw the item from the agenda to allow the Constitutional Review Working Party and Standards Committee, to consider an appeals process for rejected questions and the offer of a supplementary question to members of the public.

The Chairman outlined the recommendation from CRWP, that being to increase the word limit for Full Council questions from members of the public and Councillors from 50 words to 150 words.

Nick Hughes, Committee Services Manager, outlined the report to members.

Members sought clarification whether members of the public would still only be allowed to read their question, rather than make a speech in the 150 words. The Committee Services Manager confirmed that the public would only be allowed to read out their question.

It was proposed by Cllr Campbell, seconded by Cllr Crittenden and AGREED by members to recommend to Council to increase the word limit for Full Council questions from members of the public and Councillors from 50 words to 150 words.

Cllr Whitehead and Cllr Bailey spoke under rule 20.1 on this item.

Nicholas Hughes, Committee Services Manager, presented the report.

It was proposed, seconded and agreed that the Committee would recommend to the Standards Committee the following:

To increase the word limit for Full Council questions from Members of the Public and Councillors from 50 words to 150 words.